Jump to content

Tucker Carlson


T&C

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Yes, I believe global inflation would certainly have been much lower under Trump.  Under Biden, excessive stimulus, bigger deficits, sanctions, asset seizures and confiscation, disruptions of global supply chains beyond the impacts of COVID, disruptions of oil and gas trade and agreements, draining the SPR, deteriorating relationships with the rest of the world (minus European vassal state).  

 

I've got a light workload today so I can do this all day!   

I am curious how you feel this way
 

The things that have caused inflation would definitely have been there under Trump because it’s not Biden‘s fault. It’s not any presidents fault actually.

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

I am curious how you feel this way
 

The things that have caused inflation would definitely have been there under Trump because it’s not Biden‘s fault. It’s not any presidents fault actually.


I don’t know that we’d be out of the woods under Trump..  He certainly wasn’t some fiscal conservative. 
 

That said, I do thing it’s worthy to consider:

 

-What would energy prices look like under Trump?

 

-Would Russia have fully invaded Ukraine?

 

-Would he have curtailed some of the hyper-spending as we exited the pandemic and pushed the country in its entirety to open sooner?

 

The last one, I’m not so sure on.  The first two I think are worthwhile questions that absolutely have an effect on the inflationary environment. 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SCBills said:

-What would energy prices look like under Trump?

 

No different.

 

6 minutes ago, SCBills said:

-Would Russia have fully invaded Ukraine?

 

Yep

 

7 minutes ago, SCBills said:

-Would he have curtailed some of the hyper-spending as we exited the pandemic and pushed the country in its entirety to open sooner?

 

Curtailed? What did Trump do to our national debt - even BEFORE Covid?

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Liberals Try to Undermine Tucker Carlson's First Successful Twitter Show, But It Backfires

by Sara Arnold

 

161a78ed-1556-4818-a595-8b79a9d103f3-105

 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharnold/2023/06/08/ousted-cnn-host-brian-stetler-tries-to-undermine-tucker-carlson-but-it-backfires-n2624246

 

 

Tucker doesn’t need their help.  He undermines his show plenty well enough in his own. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Tucker Carlson Ep. 2 is a must watch.

 

The theme is what makes a culture a culture, and why American culture is declining so quickly and so dramatically.

 

His answer: taboos.

 

It’s an interesting and compelling argument, and one with which I am very sympathetic. It is not a comprehensive answer, of course, but as a hypothesis, it explains a lot.

 

Taboos are not laws: they are pre-law. What is legal and illegal is, largely, determined by what is considered taboo. If something is completely socially unacceptable, it will rarely occur and likely be illegal, although the illegality itself is hardly the point. People avoid violating taboos because the social consequences are enormous, and the laws only exist to catch the odd case of people who are willing to violate the taboo.

 

Taboos do what laws cannot: make people want to comply with a stricture regardless of whether they are likely to be caught and prosecuted. They enforce voluntary compliance with social norms–police, after all, are never there when you need them. Shame is, for most people, a far more powerful deterrent than a 1% chance of getting caught doing a crime.

 

Tucker gets to the nub of the matter when it comes to America’s social decline: there is a large-scale, organized effort to eliminate, or rather change, the taboos that regulate society. Things that were once taboo are now considered acceptable, or at least tolerable. Look at any Pride parade or what goes on in Kindergarten classrooms today, and much of it would have been taboo 20-30 years ago. Now such things are essentially mandatory.

 

More at the link: https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/06/09/tucker-carlson-ep-2-is-a-must-watch-n556698

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't object in principle to Tucker's latest monologue (if this part accurately summarizes it).

But Senator Moynihan said it better 30 years ago:

 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41212064

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/12/28/defining-deviancy-down/03bd5544-2b4a-4271-8450-51ef99f27418/

 

But this is a sticky business. When I was a kid (think 1960s/70s), being divorced and remarried was just emerging from the "scandalous" age. Reagan was our first such President. 

 

Being caught in an affair was deadly to most professions. And then Bill Clinton ...

 

Paying a hooker (or shall we say "having sex with an adult film performer in which money or favors were exchanged") was criminal, and no one would want to be seen with you. And being divorced and remarried multiple times was also a career killer for a budding politician. And then Donald Trump ...

 

Being photographed nude (tastefully! they say) pretty much negated your chances of being America's First Lady. And then Melania ...

 

All of these behaviors were just not acceptable in polite society. Many moral scolds are fine with many (most? all??) of them now.

 

I tend to follow a couple different old maxims:

 

"Conservatism is the theory that every vice should be a crime; Liberalism is the theory that every virtue should be a requirement."

"Puritism [read: modern moral conservatism]: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy."

Edited by The Frankish Reich
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...